UK perspective on the US presidential race

[cattlegrid_79]

Don't know if anyone has seen this. I haven't been on here in a while (in fact i couldn't even remember how to post this!!!).

From this side of the pond, i don't know enough about either candidate or their policies to be able to comment on who i think should be president. However, from some of these responses, it would appear that the Kerry supporters are quite easy going and the Bush supporters are real aggressive, almost fearful of him losing the seat.

Not saying that is my opinion, but see how you think this would come across to an "uneducated" UK population.

G2 Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html)

[cgrabe]

On a slightly related note, Bush's campaign website has been blocked for many foreign countries. I'm not sure what they hope to accomplish by shutting out much of the world.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1229453.htm

[Dangerdoll]

anybody voting for Nader........... or Dangerdoll?

[cgrabe]

anybody voting for Nader........... or Dangerdoll?
If either of you were associated with a party AND had a realistic chance to get the magic 5% of the vote to get federal funding next election, you'd definately get my vote regardless of your policies (within reason). I want more choices!

[geoffgarcia]

I dont plan on voting. If anyone wants to buy my vote I'll vote for whoever you want me to;)

[slipknottin]

anybody voting for...........


thats who Im voting for! Go .......... :soda:

actually im probably going to end up voting for Badnarik, even though he holds some odd ideas.

[Dangerdoll]

thats who Im voting for! Go ..........
WAHOO!! ".........." can be rather blunt sometimes, but does have some good points ;)

[PumaWard]

Cattle,

I will say right now I support President Bush, but I don't impose my opinion on my classmates at school....

Unfortunately, though, my democrat counterparts spew of how they think Bush is a moron, the war was wrong, and this this and this. I, personally, find this a more agressive stance than my own, and my other (Rep) classmates

My democratic teachers all let our classes know they support Kerry and think Bush is doing a poor job as president... I don't hear anything about support for President Bush, so I can only say that those who support Bush don't impose their opinions on their classes... again, I think the democratic one is far more aggressive.

So, maybe it's just my neck of the woods... or maybe it's the whole country... I don't know. My personal view is that the democrats are more aggressive... but again, I'm Republican, so my view is different from others :).

[aquariumfishguy]

What I do not get is why a member of the same party cannot recognize what each party has done wrong. For example, supporters of Bush cannot see how far in debt he has got us Americans. They have blinders on their eyes, and only "prefer" to see the good he has done. But do not be alarmed folks; democrats do the very same thing. Everybody who is democrat wants to look past the fact that Kerry cannot make up his mind on any one topic.

... That being said, I have mostly democratic beliefs, but I never vote straight ticket for one party affiliation or the other. I feel each party has a place in this Country (world?), but certainly I am ashamed of all the mess the President has left in his wake. I do not feel like his War has turned out the way he intended at all. As sad as it sounds, I feel like Bush used this War as a way to get his popularity ratings up. After all, at the time, much of the U.S. did support his decisions with Iraq. Then again, we (Americans) were highly misinformed too. ;)

Back to my point, I cannot look past our economy and how in debt we've become. That (to me) outweighs this war in Iraq. I feel like with the way things are going overseas, anyone can finish that mess. What exactly has the president done in Iraq that any other former president couldn't have done? Hmmmm...

As far as one party being more aggressive than the other, I think that’s totally unfounded. There are both hotheaded Republicans and Democrats.

[anonapersona]

I think it takes rather a lot of momentum to get up and actually write to the British newspaper that was involved and I'm not surprised that only hot-heads would make the effort.

Most of us would just turn a cold shoulder, thinking "Who asked you, anyway?"

Our election discussion may be held in public, but comments from by-standers are unexpected and typically unwelcome, rather like someone eavesdropping on a family's conversation during a dinner in a public restaurant and then joining the conversation with their own opinions.

[slipknottin]

Back to my point, I cannot look past our economy and how in debt we've become.

The economy is as good as it was under Clinton, and we arent that much further in debt... Of course, I dont support a deficit either, its really just a transfer of payments from tax payers now, to tax payers in the future... IE, me.

[cattlegrid_79]

Good to hear people's opinions. As i said, i do not know anywhere near enough about the candidates and parties and their policies to be able to pass comment myself.

However, in response to anonapersona, i believe that with something that is as high profile throughout the world as the US presidential election, you can't honestly expect other people, or "outsiders" to not give their opinions. It happens on every single subject in the world that is that high profile. If British people, or people from any other country in the world, happened to discuss voting with a US citizen, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to listen and do whatever this person says. Everyone has their own mind to make up.

What worries me more, is that these people who have written in response to what is one newspaper editor's idea of a stunt to sell more copies, are tarring every person from the UK with the same brush.

Ok, 11,000 people responded to the article, but when you consider the population if the UK is just under 60 million, that works out at a fraction of 1% of the population.

Sorry, just my opinions! :)

[anonapersona]

Hold on there! Just a quick recap of the article...

"Last week G2 launched Operation Clark County to help readers have a say in the American election by writing to undecided voters in the crucial state of Ohio. In the first three days, more than 11,000 people requested addresses. Here is some of the reaction to the project that we received from the US"

I'd be totally ticked off if some individual in a foreign country got my home address and wrote me a letter telling me who they thought I should vote for! Even a kind and thoughtful letter most likely supporting Kerry (most foreign polls suggest would favor Kerry about 2:1) would particularly infuriate anyone who might be considering voting for Bush.

You said
i believe that with something that is as high profile throughout the world as the US presidential election, you can't honestly expect other people, or "outsiders" to not give their opinions

Giving your opinions is one thing, write to the Washington Post or something, or even the local paper in Ohio or whatever, but writing to me personally at home is so very rude, it is amazing that a Brit would even do it.

Lets take a look at this more closely, "Clark County is a county located in the US State of Ohio. As of 2000, the population
is 144,742. " [from a google search]. How many are children unable to vote? 20%? So, that's 115,790 adults. How many are "undecided", which was the group targeted by this publicity stunt? Nationwide that is maybe 4 to 6%, let's say 5%, that gives you a list of 5,790 adults who got 2 letters each from someone in a foreign country trying to "have a say in the American election by writing to undecided voters in the crucial state of Ohio"! If one in 10 of those people got mad enough to write back, that'd be 579 letters. So, how many letters did they get back?

Wow, I followed the links in the Guardian article, to find that it was promoting not only writing personally to votes in single county, but it points out...""Perhaps the most important way foreigners could help John Kerry would be to help out those organisations which have, as part of their mission, fostering African-American voter turnout," says Nathaniel Persily, a Pennsylvania university expert on election law. "It's quite clear that if there was 100% African-American turnout in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, John Kerry would win this election running away." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the most obvious choice here - an influential, well-organised, non-partisan body whose get-out-the-vote activities are extremely likely to end up helping the Democrats." Then it says to help the Republicans give money to the Christian Coalition.

Wow! is this the same paper that runs photos of celebrities topless on the front page?

[aquariumfishguy]

The economy is as good as it was under Clinton, and we arent that much further in debt...

Every report that has been published recently, including national records of our current situation in regards to debt has pointed to a huge national deficit. I do not know exactly what the figures were, but if memory serves me correctly, Clinton had us balanced out and pretty much out of debt. Now that debt is into the trillions (correct?).

[OrionGirl]

What worries me more, is that these people who have written in response to what is one newspaper editor's idea of a stunt to sell more copies, are tarring every person from the UK with the same brush.



Can you honestly say that no one overseas lumps all Americans as ignorant boors? I've heard that reference from a variety of sources...Where's the difference?

[slipknottin]

Clinton had us balanced out and pretty much out of debt. Now that debt is into the trillions (correct?).

No, he had a balanced budget, the national debt wasent increasing or decreasing (technically it was decreasing as percentage of GDP). It is increasing now because the federal goverment is running a deficit, IE- spending more than they are taking in.

The national debt has never been anywhere near 0.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

And bush (or kerry if he wins) will hit the debt limit soon, and will have to raise taxes, or cut spending (or any combination)

[anonapersona]

No wonder Bush supporter were upset...

3 letters to Ohio (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1326066,00.html)

From one letter:
"...Vote to send Bush packing.
Before 9/11 gave him his big break - the neo-cons' Pearl Harbor - Bush was written off as an amiable idiot, certain to serve only one term. An idiot he may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive; and the thuggish ideologues who surround him are dangerous..."

From a different letter:
"While Bush was waging his father's war at your expense, he was also ruining your country. He made your rich richer and your poor and unemployed more numerous. He robbed your war veterans of their due and reduced your children's access to education. And he deprived more Americans than ever before of healthcare. Now he's busy cooking the books, burying deficits and calling in contingency funds to fight a war that his advisers promised him he could light and put out like a candle. "

Pretty strong stuff. Yes, I'd be pretty mad if some letter like that showed up at my home.

Perhaps we can do the same for you during your next election.

[Dapple2]

I get teeved by people bothering me at home (lettres, door-to-door, phone) regardless of whether I agree with the canditate or issue athand, I like my privacy!

[Corax]

I'd vote for DDoll because of her sparkly jeans alone!

[slipknottin]

I'd vote for DDoll because of her sparkly jeans alone!


"is that a mirror in your pants...." :D

[Sensei_the_dojo]

No, he had a balanced budget, the national debt wasent increasing or decreasing (technically it was decreasing as percentage of GDP). It is increasing now because the federal goverment is running a deficit, IE- spending more than they are taking in.

The national debt has never been anywhere near 0.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

And bush (or kerry if he wins) will hit the debt limit soon, and will have to raise taxes, or cut spending (or any combination)
Actually, all they'll do is get congress to raise the debt limit - again. Bush just didn't want to ask them to do it prior to the election.

[slipknottin]

Actually, all they'll do is get congress to raise the debt limit - again. Bush just didn't want to ask them to do it prior to the election.


Yea, well, hopefully congress doesnt allow it.

[Sensei_the_dojo]

They'll allow it. There'll be some stink about it, probably from both sides. But they'll allow it.

[slipknottin]

They'll allow it. There'll be some stink about it, probably from both sides. But they'll allow it.


And such is the problem when most of congress is 50+, they arent the ones who have to pay the bill.

[gonefishin]

It's been said that democracy is the worst government system ever thought up, except for all the other ones. and I agree. i think a lot of people are voting AGAINST bush rather than FOR anyone else. With such a close race you have 51%of the people making the decision for the other 49%. The "loosers" have no say whatsoever in who was elected. Not that I should be the one to re-write the rules, but I think someone could come up with something better after 200+ years.

[aquariumfishguy]

I think people should be tastefully "forced" to vote. It is too bad – voting should be looked at as a privilege, rather than a right or hassle. What a shame that people who do not usually vote probably have past ancestors who would have died for the privilege. Does 15-20 minutes every 4 years really cost you that much out of your life? That is how I look at it anyway.

Although I am sure people would call us a dictatorship if we made people vote. Then again, you'd probably need more than 2 major people to vote for if you were going to force the vote of millions of people.

[slipknottin]

forcing people to vote is no different than forcing people to not vote.

[Dapple2]

I think people should be tastefully "forced" to vote. It is too bad – voting should be looked at as a privilege, rather than a right or hassle. What a shame that people who do not usually vote probably have past ancestors who would have died for the privilege. Does 15-20 minutes every 4 years really cost you that much out of your life? That is how I look at it anyway.

Although I am sure people would call us a dictatorship if we made people vote. Then again, you'd probably need more than 2 major people to vote for if you were going to force the vote of millions of people.

I for one would take great exception to be forced to vote. I choose to serve my country in other ways. What if I told you everyone would be forced to serve in the military for the greater good?

[cgrabe]

What if I told you everyone would be forced to serve in the military for the greater good?
You wouldn't be the first to suggest it. There are many who would love to see the USA adopt conscript service.

I'd agree that forcing people to vote would be a bad idea though. We should make people want to vote. Let's start by not being so hostile to third parties in the Presidential campaign.

[slipknottin]

You wouldn't be the first to suggest it. There are many who would love to see the USA adopt conscript service.



Youd find just as many adamant about not allowing 'uninformed' voters from voting. And I imagine 'uninformed' = 'who i disagree with'

[PumaWard]

The way I look at people choosing not to vote is that they don't have a right to complain about who's elected or any of there policies. So, if you didn't vote, than I'm not going to take your complaints too seriously.

[Gealcath]

Its all apart of Bush having to make "tough descisions", and he has never made a mistake, the problem with Iraq, the stolen unguarded weapons, the rising deficit, its all going to plan because Bush hasnt made 1 mistake (he even says so in his own speeches).

[PumaWard]

hasn't the stolen weapons story been recanted?

[125gJoe]

hasn't the stolen weapons story been recanted?Yeah.. It took place a long, long time ago, in a land far, far away.. :D

[gonefishin]

He he. I was watching bonanza last night (i'm in tahoe about 5 miles from the ranch) and there were 2 back to back episodes. the first one was a guy who fixed an election and the second one was about a case of missing dynamite. Do you think the producers could be psykick?

[cgrabe]

Its all apart of Bush having to make "tough descisions", and he has never made a mistake, the problem with Iraq, the stolen unguarded weapons, the rising deficit, its all going to plan because Bush hasnt made 1 mistake (he even says so in his own speeches).
According to this (http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761) guy, Bush has said he believes that one of the keys to being a leader is never admitting to a mistake. I don't know how reliable the source is (supposedly very), but it's an interesting read.

[aquariumfishguy]

I believe I also said,

"Then again, you'd probably need more than 2 major people to vote for if you were going to force the vote of millions of people."

... Involving people in the voting process is much different (and in many ways) than forcing people to serve in the military. I feel like if people are going to live in this country, why shouldn't they have a say in who runs it? Again, I do not think we should have to force people to vote... and I also agree with the poster who said, "if you do not vote, you do not have a right to complain". That is very true, too bad it never works out that way though. In fact, some might say that those who do not vote tend to be more critical of our government.

[Dapple2]

To quote my favourite author:

The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are many - one of the many major problems with governing people is this: Whom do you get to do it? Or rather, who manages to get people to let them do it to them?

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those who most want to rule are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: Anybody who is capable of getting themself made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

This is the root of my problem. I looked at the other runners, but they all were completely unappealing to me. I'm sure somewhere there is some average joe that's like man, I could do better than that, that is running, but I haven't seen em!

[greeneyedlady]

If a person is uninformed about the candidates and their political beliefs having them "force" to vote is the act of stupidity, how would they decide who to vote for, who has a better haircut, get real................

As for the aggressiveness of political parties all political parties are aggressive, that is how they drum up votes. For me in this particular election that means the Democrats, that is because my husband is a sheet metal worker. On a school day they "made" them go to a democratic rally then took the guys back to class and basicly "told" them who they wanted them to vote for. My husband is a republican and his only comment to all this was "Is the school going to give equal time to the republicans, independents and green party candidates to speak on their issues?" He was told "H3ll No", then they called my house 3 times on 3 different occassions to tell us that they were supporting the democrats and so was everyone else in the union. This is not true as my husband knows several guys in the union who are voting for other candidates (ie: Bush, Nadar, etc). I told my husband that if they called again and I answered the phone, I was going to let them have an earful :mad2 Because I considered that excessive, the sad thing is that there are guys who will vote for the democrats only because the union told them to. To me that is not right, if these guys were more involved they might decide to support Nadar or another candidate, we have a choice of like 5 candidates for president here in Maryland.

[Dangerdoll]

it's sad GEL, if they do vote for "who their union" suggests..... unfair even.... burns me up that people have every right to their own opinion, yet still abide by what someone else tells them.....:rant:

[N8DOGG]

it's sad GEL, if they do vote for "who their union" suggests..... unfair even.... burns me up that people have every right to their own opinion, yet still abide by what someone else tells them.....:rant:

I would agree but they are not going to hold your had into the voting booth so it won't really matter who they say "everyone" is going to vote for. Its still a personal choice. I think when it comes to a union they vote for the canadate that will best serve the union. and is why there is a union to begin with.

[Dangerdoll]

I can understand that and even respect the duty of the union thing but for anyone to pretty much decide for you is what I understood. Right, once you pull the curtain closed, it's all you but what about those that don't do it for that but do it because "someone said so".

[N8DOGG]

I guess that those people would vote for who ever they were told to vote for regardless of the union. my Brother is in a police union and I'll ask him why he would vote for who the union said to vote for. If he liked the choice or is just doing it b/c of the union said so. A lot of people don't like being told waht to do so I think this wouold backfire, but to strongly suggest one way or the other would be a better approach to getting the union members to vote for someone.
I also agree with greeneyedlady, I would like anyone calling my house to tell me who to vote for and I would vote the way I wanted regardles of what they said.

[aquariumfishguy]

Dapple, your quote and opinion makes a lot of sense... much of it applies to our country.

But - how would we like having someone as President if they didn't have a certain "ambition" to do the job? It seems to me like you cannot have a commander and chief who doesn't strive to become President.

[cgrabe]

There are plenty who strive to be President but just don't play dirty enough to get into one of the two prime election slots (like McCain). I have no clue how to fix it though.

[Dapple2]

I agree with the general sentiment of the quote, especially as it applies to the major runners (not just the top two, but everyone else who appeared in the Oregon voter's pamphlet as well). Like Cgrabe, I do believe it is possible to have someone noncorrupt run, but how to get them into a position to be a viable choice without corrupting them I don't know. I'm sure there's gotta be some normal, but well-informed people oiut there, that are like, "Dangit, I could do a better job than that!" that could be great, they just never make it to the forefront without loads of money.

[aquariumfishguy]

Corrupt and ambitious is much different... none of us know the candidates' true (full) intentions, but I'd like to think the person I vote for will not be corrupt.

[Dangerdoll]

but I'd like to think the person I vote for will not be corrupt.

wouldn't we all AFG..... in a perfect world I guess.....

[aquariumfishguy]

Maybe people just shouldn't vote period then? I mean, if your thoughts are that every candidate we've ever had was corrupt, should you vote them into office? Nobody is perfect, but to be called corrupt is rather harsh. Or is our problem that there is no fine line?

[saltyc]

sometimes it's not so much a matter of voting for someone as voting against someone.
There is an essay by Robert Heinlein (the sci fi writer) on voting that deals with this particular subject. Can't remember the name of the book, just remember that's what he says about it-that most of the time we are choosing the lesser of evils rather than the best choice.

[saltyc]

BTW, I voted this morning!!

[Dapple2]

Oh, I found people in the local elections to vote for....and I have seen better choices for prez in the past. I just couldn't find anyone worthy of backing this time around for that spot.

As for voting just to be voting against someone, to me, both of the major choices were almost just as bad....

[aquariumfishguy]

Dangerdoll - btw, I wasn't directly speaking to you, just running on the comment. ;)

[Dangerdoll]

ah, I knew that AFG, no harm taken sweets ;)

(btw, I voted first thing this morning :D )